I was really just using the Have all licenses code as an example but I changed it to just a dummy code.
Anyway I wasn't trying to be rude at all, simply trying to help.
The method of removing the _L from code lines doesn't work all the time:
_L 0x00001235 0x00000001
would not be:
0x00001235 0x00000001
because you can't write a 32-bit value to an 8/16-bit address (unless nitepr tries to correct the code when parsing/applying it), the correct conversion of that code would be:
0x00001235 0x01
that will only write to 1 byte of memory whereas the other conversion would write to 4 bytes of memory.
For normal write codes NitePR uses the length of the value to determine how many bytes need to be written to memory whereas CWCheat uses the first number of the address to determine how many bytes to write to memory.
Another example:
- Code:
-
_C0 Test
_L 0x00111234 0x00000001
_C0 Test
_L 0x10111234 0x00000001
_C0 Test
_L 0x20111234 0x00000001
- Code:
-
#Test
0x00111234 0x01
#Test
0x00111234 0x0001
#Test
0x0111234 0x00000001
You can verify this by using the converter at
http://free.hostultra.com/~glitchessocom/CWCheat2nitePR.htm.
Also for single pointer codes an example conversion would be:
- Code:
-
_C0 Example 32-bit Pointer
_L 0x60001234 0x05F5E0FF
_L 0x00020001 0x00000010
_C0 Example 16-bit Pointer
_L 0x6001234 0x000003E7
_L 0x00010001 0x00000010
_C0 Example 8-bit Pointer
_L 0x6001234 0x000003E7
_L 0x00000001 0x00000010
- Code:
-
#Example 32-bit Pointer
0xFFFFFFFF 0x00001234
0x00000010 0x05F5E0FF
#Example 16-bit Pointer
0xFFFFFFFF 0x00001234
0x00000010 0x03E7
#Example 8-bit Pointer
0xFFFFFFFF 0x00001234
0x00000010 0x63
For the first pointer code the "_L 0x6" tells CWCheat that the code is a pointer code and the "_L 0x00020001" tells CWCheat that is should write 4-bytes of data (0x05F5E0FF) to the value store at 0x00001234+10.
In regards to NitePR the "0xFFFFFFFF" tells NitePR that the code is a pointer code and the length of the second value tells NitePR that it should write 4-bytes of data (0x05F5E0FF) to the value stored at 0x00001234+10.
Anyway please don't disrespect me you don't know me at all and I meant no disrespect towards yourself. While from looking at your codes I must admit many look more advanced then any codes I have made however I am more of a programming person and have spent a lot of time looking at both the CWCheat and NitePR code types.